Picture a splashy political thriller featuring a flamboyant anti-heroine, equal parts Hugo Chávez and Paris Hilton, who somehow infiltrates the United Nations. The premise may sound unrealistic, but it is all too real. And the star is María Gabriela Chávez: socialist socialite, bon vivant, Pomeranian enthusiast, and occasional Instagram troll, who will soon be checking out of the Venezuelan presidential mansion—which she has continued to inhabit illegally since her father’s death in early 2013—and heading to Turtle Bay as Venezuela’s newly appointed alternate ambassador to the United Nations. In this capacity, she will be empowered to attend meetings, speak, and even vote on her country’s behalf, albeit under the nominal supervision of chief representative Jorge Valero. María Gabriela is not easily supervised, however, and the reasons behind her ascension remain murky and contested.

Perhaps it’s fitting that María Gabriela’s international coming-out party will be taking place at the UN, which previously served as a political stage for her dad. In September 2006, during a now-infamous speech before the General Assembly, the Venezuelan president announced to the assembled delegates and worthies that his podium smelled of sulfur—a reference to the fact that “El Diablo” (an ostensibly infernal George W. Bush) had spoken there the previous day. I was living in Venezuela then, and vividly remember coming home from work to a bevy of instant messages—American friends either congratulating me personally for the immensity of El Comandante’s cojones, or else demanding I apologize on his behalf.

Hugo Chávez just had that effect on people. Prior to his death from an unspecified cancer at age 58, he could regularly send his detractors into fits of indignation or mortification. Yet to many defenders he was (and continues to be) a divinity: “the Eternal One,” “the Giant” or, in the words of one Caracas mayor: “the Galactic Commander who is universal, celestial, terrestrial, human and divine, and can be found within the heart of every good man and woman.”

Related Story

This intense loyalty has been actively promoted by Venezuela’s successor government. Chávez’s signature and face—even his disembodied stare—are ubiquitous around Caracas, appearing far more frequently than images of his successor, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro, for his part, has largely rested his own legitimacy on having been publicly anointed by Chávez as his rightful political heir, claiming to receive visitations from the former leader’s supportiveghost and even styling himself as “Chávez’s son” on occasion.

And yet Maduro is not Chávez’s son. Chávez had no shortage of biological offspring—fathering two daughters and a son from a first marriage, one daughter from a second, and a daughter by a mistress whom he kept hidden from public view until his death. Of these, María Gabriela, 33, the younger daughter by the first marriage, was his favorite and the most like her father—at least according to his ex-wife. While his other children might float in and out of his good graces, for being indiscreet or spendthrift, María Gabriela was his consentida. When Chávez was removed from office for two days following a coup against him in 2002, it was reportedly María Gabriela whom he called first, allowing her to spread the word to allies at home and abroad that he had not willingly resigned. Following the president’s second divorce in 2004, María Gabriela unofficially took on the role of first lady, traveling with Chávez internationally and undertaking minor hosting duties at state affairs.

At times, Chávez seemed to hint at a possible succession by María Gabriela—once expressing, for example, a preference for a female successor despite a noticeable lack of women among his top lieutenants. Yet his unforeseen and rapid physical decline negated any possibility of leaving her in charge.

Following Chávez’s death, the Maduro government sought to co-opt the image of his biological family. María Gabriela has regularly appeared alongside Maduro in state media, and was ostentatiously supportive of his rule in public. In exchange, Maduro relegated himself to less lofty vice-presidential digs, allowing María Gabriela and her older sister Rosa Virginia (who, ironically, is actually married to Venezuela’s current vice president) to remain in the presidential palace with their families, where they continue to be lavishly maintained at public expense.

Since that time, María Gabriela has kept herself busy as best she can, giving awkward concerts and visiting other regional leaders like Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Argentina’s Cristina Kirchner. Savvy with social media and reluctant to be out of the spotlight, she has remained very active on Twitter, regularly sending off touching anecdotes about her father’s opinions, and dog pictures, to her nearly 1 million followers.

It’s not clear what to make of her recent appointment to the United Nations, a move that has been roundly condemned by the national opposition—and even some Chavistas—as ludicrous and gallingly nepotistic. Beyond her illustrious surname, she would seem, in the conventional sense, to be highly unqualified for the role. Having failed out of or abandoned (details are disputed) her study of international affairs at Venezuela’s prestigious Central University—where current students of the same program are now publicly protesting her UN appointment—she eventually went on to earn a journalism degree from the Bolivarian University of Venezuela, a state-run school her father founded by decree in 2003. She has never formally practiced this backup profession. Indeed, other than her time as unofficial first lady, she seems to lack work history of any sort.

This may not matter, of course. According to Elías Jaua, the Venezuelan foreign minister, her role moving forward will be to spread Hugo Chávez’s “profound message of solidarity and fraternity.” Yet there are also some darker potential explanations for her promotion. Over the past several months, María Gabriela has been plagued by persistent corruption scandals, accused of pocketing illicit income by overpricing Argentine rice imports at a time when food shortages are rampant in Venezuela. While the ruling party has brushed aside opposition calls for a formal investigation into the alleged corruption, the foreign posting may be a way of getting her out of the public eye, while simultaneously justifying state expenditures for her upkeep and possibly granting her either diplomatic or parliamentary immunity should it ever be required.

Another theory holds that the appointment may be part of a larger conspiracy to help empower the Maduro regime’s close Cuban allies. With a high-profile Venezuelan representative directly taking cues from old Chávez family friends Fidel and Raul Castro, Cuba would be able to wield an outsized influence in the UN, one of the few international organizations to which it belongs—particularly if Venezuela successfully secures a temporary seat on the Security Council this year.

Still others consider it a first, tentative step on the presidential trajectory María Gabriela’s father once wished for her, equipping Maduro’s government with a Chávez in an official role until she proves ready to relieve the president.

Then again, this may all be just another in a long line of irrelevant controversies—ones deliberately stirred up as a distraction by a regime robbed of its charismatic front man and unable to make headway against the myriad economic, infrastructural, and security calamities actually affecting the daily lives of 26 million exhausted Venezuelans. Short on bread but long on circuses, Maduro likely hopes his countrymen will take in the show instead of raising a fuss. He may be offering them another blockbuster on the marquee, alongside July’s government-sponsored “March Against Israeli Genocide” and the latest purported CIA plot to kill a sitting Venezuelan president. The entertainment may at least help Venezuelans forget their troubles for a while.

About the Author

Daniel Lansberg-Rodriguez is a geopolitical-risk analyst based in Chicago, where he teaches Latin American business at the Kellogg School of Management. He is a weekly columnist for the Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A leading neuroscientist who has spent decades studying creativity shares her research on where genius comes from, whether it is dependent on high IQ—and why it is so often accompanied by mental illness.

As a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies creativity, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many gifted and high-profile subjects over the years, but Kurt Vonnegut—dear, funny, eccentric, lovable, tormented Kurt Vonnegut—will always be one of my favorites. Kurt was a faculty member at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop in the 1960s, and participated in the first big study I did as a member of the university’s psychiatry department. I was examining the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness, and Kurt was an excellent case study.

He was intermittently depressed, but that was only the beginning. His mother had suffered from depression and committed suicide on Mother’s Day, when Kurt was 21 and home on military leave during World War II. His son, Mark, was originally diagnosed with schizophrenia but may actually have bipolar disorder. (Mark, who is a practicing physician, recounts his experiences in two books, The Eden Express and Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So, in which he reveals that many family members struggled with psychiatric problems. “My mother, my cousins, and my sisters weren’t doing so great,” he writes. “We had eating disorders, co-dependency, outstanding warrants, drug and alcohol problems, dating and employment problems, and other ‘issues.’ ”)

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.